Friday, April 13, 2012

Stonewall cries bigotry and grabs Boris by the balls

What price freedom of speech? Freedom of expression? Freedom of association? Freedom of contract? As His Grace foresaw (because it was tediously predictable), The Guardian jumped (with unseemly haste) on the Anglican Mainstream and Core Issues Trust plans to advertise a challenge to Stonewall’s claim that being homosexual is innate and unchangeable. For his own ashes, His Grace is not inclined to megaphone advertising and is no fan of sound-bite soteriology, but is respectful and tolerant of those who wish to spend their money in this way. Richard Dawkins’ did not create one new atheist with his bus-side 'There’s probably no God’ campaign, and doubtless the ‘No God’ slogan irked or offended more than a few people of faith. But the Christians responded in like fashion (again, without news of mass conversions), and there was a healthy and entertaining debate. And debate requires the proposition of (at least) two opposing viewpoints, or it is simply an imbalanced presentation of a singular thesis.

Christians are called to proclaim the Good News, and whether that vocation be in a pulpit, upon a television screen, or walking up and down Oxford Street with a sandwich board, it ought to be tolerated in a free society. Now, while some might preach the wonders of heaven, the Way of Salvation and the boundless love of Jesus, others choose to focus on sin and damnation. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive – it takes all sorts. In 1999 Lord Justice Sedley championed the rights of people to express such views, and quoted Socrates and two famous Quakers in doing so. There is no breach of the peace if what is said is merely offensive. He said: “Free speech includes not only the offensive, but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative, providing it does not tend to provoke violence.”

The world has seen too many examples of state control and censorship of unofficial utterances. The Anglican Mainstream and Core Issues Trust message may well be offensive, irritating, contentious, eccentric, heretical, unwelcome and provocative, but it is His Grace’s judgment that society is all the better for such expressions being permitted: freedom reigns while people spout their views. The ‘post-gay’ advert was as response to the Stonewall advert, which sounds rather like a debate to His Grace. Of course, we draw the line at prejudice, irrational discrimination or incitement to violence. Or we used to, before Labour introduced the concept of ‘hate speech’. But now, it seems, any utterance which a minority group might find offensive is censored: the contentious, eccentric, heretical, unwelcome and provocative must give way to a state-enforced normative orthodoxy of denatured social harmony.

And this Conservative-Liberal coalition is perpetuating the new spirituality. The Guardian reported (somewhat gleefully, His Grace suspects) that the bus adverts commissioned by the Christian groups had been pulled by London’s Conservative mayoral candidate, Boris Johnson. In an extraordinary display of semantic volte face, they report him as saying: “London is one of the most tolerant cities in the world and intolerant of intolerance. It is clearly offensive to suggest that being gay is an illness that someone recovers from and I am not prepared to have that suggestion driven around London on our buses."

So it is apparently fine for Stonewall to blitz England’s capital city with pro-gay propaganda that may offend those of orthodox religious belief (indeed, there was an inferred slap of homophobia on everyone's cheek), but wholly intolerant to point out that some with same-sex attraction wanting help and support to change may indeed do just that – change. You may not agree with the message; it might even be offensive. But to censor it is to propagate the belief that ‘Gay is good’, which is fine if you believe that. But for those mainly Abrahamic monotheists who take a slightly different view, to censor the counter-proposition is tantamount to banning discussion of sexual ethics and expressions of religious orthodoxy.

His Grace happens to believe that the proposed advert was crass and clumsily worded, but it did not scream out for suppression. If Boris were really tolerant, he would have given the enraged Stonewellian activists short shrift. When democratic politicians no longer tolerate expressions of dissent, we no longer live in a liberal state. Only a few days ago, the Prime Minister urged Christians to ‘fight back’ against the inexorable rise of secular intolerance, effectively sounding the battle cry of a culture war. Surely he must know – with his First in PPE – that aggressive secularism is being inculcated through the incremental imposition of intolerant ‘gay rights’ upon us all – even upon those mild and moderate homosexuals who were once perfectly happy to live and let live. Christian evangelicalism is outlawed while homogelicalism thrives, and the religious conscience is systematically subsumed to this new order.

His Grace happens to know that Anglican Mainstream and the Core Issues Trust are now considering legal action against TfL for breach of contract. Firstly, they want to know who breached the confidentiality clause and leaked news of the proposed to The Guardian, and then they want to know on what grounds TfL have terminated the agreement, not least because they were approved by TfL’s advertising agency CBSO; they fall foul of no ASA regulation; and had been agreed by the Committee of Advertising Practice.

But it appears that Christian groups may no longer freely associate with some advertising agencies (or they with them), and that the ASA and CAP may be arbitrarily overridden by the intolerant autocrat. Have we really become a nation where you are not allowed to express an honestly-held opinion, even when that opinion may be supported with sacred Scripture? Is it permissible any longer to say that homosexuality is a sin? Is it legal any longer to preach the belief that homosexuals might be forgiven for their sins and transformed into a new creation? If this, in the words of Stonewall’s chief executive Ben Summerskill, is just ‘voodoo’, then the state has reduced all religion to primitive superstition.

And people are free and must remain free to spout such views. But what manner of debate is to be had when ‘equality’ legislation makes Christians unequal, and TfL’s ‘inclusive’ policies exclude the Christian? If, as Boris says, ‘London is one of the most tolerant cities in the world and intolerant of intolerance’, then who is the custodian of the thresholds of intolerance? Who determines which socio-political lobby group rises and which falls?

While I have some concerns about freedom of speech issues - this is purely an advertising campaign, and as such is subject to rules about claims of efficacy.

The Stonewall adverts simply stated a fact - that some people are gay - which would be very difficult to argue with.

The banned adverts seems to be making a claim that homosexuality can be "cured" - and in doing so, needs to be able to prove it.

On those grounds alone, the ASA would have been very likely to censure TfL had it run the adverts.

It would have been better if the announcement about the ban on the adverts had been limited to the technicality that they are probably a breach of ASA guidelines - rather than a comment about homophobia.

But the fact is, if an advert wants to make a claim, it has to be able to prove it.

"Peddling snake oil under the guise of religion is NOT advertising fit for purpose. (Christian belief is NOT snake oil but salvation by one who lived on the earth and paid for mine and YOUR sin)

Could I legitimately claim that staring at a hedgehog for 4 hours would cure you of cholesterol and get away with it. (Why, what extraordinary powers do you possess ..raise the dead, water into wine, cure leprosy, lame blind, stop storms???, to legitimately claim you could do this and what is the link between a hedgehog and cholesterol???. A Comparison should be based like for like, or were you not taught this at the joined up writing school.

I once heard Boris's father, Stanley Johnson, give a talk on His Grace's own wonderful Book of Common Prayer.

What a disappointment Boris has turned out to be.

David B, that is not quite what Dr Spitzer was saying. He was merely stating that his study was based on anecdotal evidence from those who identified as ex-gay. Hard to see how it could have been done differently, sexuality being as fluid as it is. I know a number of such people (ex-gays, that is). Studies on those who identify as 100% gay must be anecdotal as well, as there are no distinguishing features.

How on Earth does the sentence 'Some people are gay' (a fact) even imply, let alone say, that homosexuality is 'innate' and 'unchangeable'? Some people are truck drivers too.

The stonewall message is a simple, positive, 'there's nothing wrong with being gay' opinion. The religious response ad heavily implies the factual claim (unevidenced and generally dismissed by modern psychology) that homosexuality is a problem that can be cured/alleviated/moved on from. There is absolutely no equivalence.

Don't you people have a commandment against bearing false witness or something?

Article: "If this, in the words of Stonewall’s chief executive Ben Summerskill, is just ‘voodoo’, then the state has reduced all religion to primitive superstition."

The voodoo adjective was linked to the science, wasn't it? That is, these people appear to be charlatans peddling quack cures to desperate people. Desperate, I suspect, because of internal conflicts between shared and externally maintained religious belief and their personal experiences of their own sexuality.

It's a bit sad really, in the traditional sense of the word, that people are torn like that. Thankfully, society has changed enough now that people who live outside such religious strictures can, with a fair wind, live normal, happy lives like everyone else where one's sexuality is simply not an issue.

"(Christian belief is NOT snake oil but salvation by one who lived on the earth and paid for mine and YOUR sin)"

The key word here being BELIEF. You cannot sell a medicine/treatment on the basis of belief, but rather only on the basis of empirical evidence and clinical trials. For obvious reasons.

If you want to believe that the best response to homosexuality is therapy to help the person stop being a homosexual, go for it. But you can't start putting that as a factual claim on billboards and buses.

DanJo, if anyone wanted 'conversion' to gayness I strongly uphold their right to seek such help - if they can find any such therapist.

Although I would question the psychological fitness of someone actively seeking the life of promiscuity and sickness which is the lot of many gay people, in their constant but impossible quest for someone to fill the gap left by the un-complementariness of same-sex pairings.

I know you find this hard to understand, but there are people with a different moral code to your own, and any Christian who studies scripture will know that same-sex activity is not God's best for people. Which is why same-sex attracted Christians often seek help, and why their faith can give them the strength to resist their urges.

Modern psychology cannot even agree on the terms of schizophrenia which is a bit like snake-oil sales is it not..There are plenty of Christians who were homosexual or lesbian who changed by the Grace of God and they have stated a testimony as valid as any past depressive who now claims to be cured!!!Of course the modernist says it was the drugs and self assessment courses that achieved this but if you are saying we can all be deluded then their dis-ease is as incurable as the gays you say that cannot be!

Your avatar states much, as Shakespeare would attest?;

I believe in a cruel God

who has created in in His image

and whom, in hate, I name.

From some vile seed

or base atom I am born.

I am evil because I am a man;

and I feel the primeval slime in me.

Yes! This is my testimony!

I believe with a firm heart,

as does the young widow at the altar,

that whatever evil I think

or that whatever comes from me

was decreed for me by fate.

I believe that the honest man

is but a poor actor,

both in face and heart,

that everything in him is a lie:

tears, kisses, looks,

sacrifices, and honor.

And I believe man to be the sport

of an unjust Fate,

from the germ of the cradle

to the worm of the grave.

After all this mockery comes death.

And then? And then?

Death is Nothingness.

Heaven is an old wives’ tale!

DanJo stated

"That is, these people appear to be charlatans peddling quack cures to desperate people." A brilliant definition of that science called psychology, young man..lol.

Flossie: "I know you find this hard to understand, but there are people with a different moral code to your own, and any Christian who studies scripture will know that same-sex activity is not God's best for people."

You know I find that hard to understand? Huh? Much of my approach down here is to point out that people have different moral codes. I've been in long debates about moral relativism and moral absolutism. One of my key retorts there is that various religions have moral codes which each claim a different and competing moral absolutism, and either none or only one of them is correct. I'm a political liberal. An inherent part of that is creating space so that people with different religious and moral views can co-exist where possible. You're basically talking complete and utter bollocks.

The likelihood is, Flossie, it is you who finds it hard, perhaps impossible, to understand that people have different moral codes and that we believe them to be correct. That appears to be in the nature of religious belief and it is why we must have a secular State in a diverse society like ours.

Turning this into a free speech issue is interesting but misses the main point. The counter-campaign misleads people as to God's attitude to gay people (and all people, for that matter). That's true even under a conservative, biblical theology. For two Christian organisations that should be seen as a serious error.

As to this talk of scientific evidence, if there are any people out there who can say they once were gay and now are not, that's enough evidence to back up the counter-campaign. However we may feel about it, there are people who claim as such. There is no claim about scientifically proven therapies in the advert so the ASA has no reason to get involved.

DanJo, who, exactly, is trying to wipe out whose views? Stonewall and other gay activist groups will not tolerate the fact that some same-sex attracted people have different beliefs to their own, and are trying to shut them up.

Their offensive 'voodoo' remark needs challenging. Many people have overcome same-sex attractions. Stonewall claim to support all gay people - but not ex-gays, apparently.

There is nothing in Anglican Mainstream/Core's statement which denies people the right to self-identify.

The many gays#4Cranmer posting here seem to have overlooked that there is not a peep from Ken. Think psephology, not philosophy, lads and lassies. There are more Muslims than there are homosexuals in London, and there's the rub.

Not me. I'm a liberal who has said time and again that I support Article 9. Moreover, I'd rather the adverts were displayed for all to see as I have said on the thread below. I'd like a bright light to be shined on the people behind it too.

"Their offensive 'voodoo' remark needs challenging. Many people have overcome same-sex attractions. Stonewall claim to support all gay people - but not ex-gays, apparently."

I quite like the Voodoo thing as it is multifaceted. It's not just pejorative, you know. Voodoo is actually related to Christianity and a core aspect of it is healing through ritual and the use of faith. No doubt it requires the recipient to believe healing is possible too. Summerskill has captured something there, I think. I wonder if it was a deliberate and carefully chosen term?

Of course, as the article says, it presents the image of "primitive superstition" but then Christianity is probably very weird to many people. It certainly is to me. I cringed and shook my head at the mumbo jumbo, especially the chanted responses and priestly intoning, in the recent televised Easter service.

There's an interesting article by Roger Booth (in case the link gets deleted) in the Guardian now about the rise of Christian activism in the UK. It talks about the Americanisation of Christian protest and I think it's spot on. At the risk of getting kicked, I think the blog owner is knowingly in the thick of it too. Fair play, really. However, things will get quite interesting quite soon though, I reckon. Perhaps I've just been radicalised here and the other political/religious forums I hang around in but it seems to me that we're approaching an ideological-war situation between religionists and non-religionists. It's a bit depressing for me, my being a liberal and all, as I think one side is going to have to put the other on the ground and make sure it doesn't get up again. That's the way we're going.

Bit of an over-reaction isn't it? I mean, I'm as queer as they come, but I don't much object if the religious lunatics want to put this rubbish on buses. Since when did we start looking to the sides of buses for statements about our collective morality, anyway? I do wonder sometimes about these sort of 'pray away the gay' groups .

Your Grace,Brilliant Post Sir. I decided to do more than comment just here so here is my letter to the Mayor;

Dear Mr Johnson,Further to your cancelling the advertising campaign by Anglican Mainstream, I would say that I understand your concerns and agree that the text was not necessarily an appropriate response to the Stonewall advertisement.

I would also say that the Stonewall advert is equally obnoxious and offensive as it DEMANDS that the vast majority of people in this country, particularly people of faith, give up their faith and accept homosexuality as OK. This applies to Muslims, Jews as well as Christians and it is obnoxious and offensive that they should be expected to deny their faith. People of faith have always known that there were some who chose to lead a different sexual lifestyle than the majority but they resent being told to ‘GET OVER IT’.

Gods authority is higher than Westminster’s authority since God’s authority is eternal and Westminster’s is temporal. Naturally, people are more concerned with the eternal.

You were quoted as saying that London was ‘intolerant of intolerance’. Stonewalls campaign is intolerant of the majority by demanding acceptance.

For the sake of Equality, let alone decency, I would request that you pull the current Stonewall adverts and apologise for the offence caused.

A large number of Americans decide their political favourite of the month by his/her attitudes on abortion and homosexuality. Is this an enlightened way to choose elected representatives and would we wish to see similar here?

"The Anglican Mainstream and Core Issues Trust message may well be offensive, irritating, contentious". There are people out there who have unwanted same-sex attraction (Yes, "Get over it!"), and they have the right to be told that there is somewhere they can go for advice/help/etc. To deny them that right is plain evil (as, Cranmer seems to be saying, denying AM/CIT the right to advertise those facts is). Above all, Stonewall and Boris Johnson do not care about individual people (such as these), and their rights, to any extent whatever.

Some people don't give a damn whether some people are Gay or not. Get over that if you can!

Organizations like Stonewall, and those involved in beer and wine making, have one thing in common. In general, the more advertising required, the worse the product.

I suggest a full investigation as from where organizations like Stonewall receive the vast majority of their funding, of the black as well as white variety. I would gamble that the majority of it does not come from homosexuals.

The real power in this world of theirs, no longer needs the prize money, they keep their fortune by controlling the book makers, namely the Money Markets, and forever holding the winning cup in grasping hand.

Which is why they own, and therefore control ALL of the horses in the race, one way or another. This is no less true with matters Gay, then with all others, bar none whatsoever.

I think we are having our plonkers pulled, by people who take much delight in also F...... with our minds, all of the rest of the time.

They do this for many reasons, one of which being, BECAUSE THEY CAN, and know with an absolute certainty that they will get clean away with doing so.

All it takes, is a plan from the TOP.

Which is all it ever took in the past, and all it will undoubtedly take in the future.( ambiguity intended )

I think you mean "We're all human and we all live in a broken world." Yes, so what? We knew that - we just have found an answer which we'd like to share with you, if you could stop sneering long enough to listen.

But for those interested in a reasoned and caring Christian response on this issue and the difference it can really make in people's lives, check this out - http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2011/12/30/loving-enough-to-offend/

It would be so much more loving to say nothing and let people wreck their lives, wouldn't it?

Crikey, that link could be straight out of a Watchtower magazine or a religious version of the Readers Digest. I was looking for the "Yes! Please rush me my illustrated and leatherbound copy of How Jesus Can Help Me Stop Thinking About Men's Wangers. I enclose a cheque for £3.99 incl P&P." at the end.

we're approaching an ideological-war situation between religionists and non-religionists. It's a bit depressing for me, my being a liberal and all, as I think one side is going to have to put the other on the ground and make sure it doesn't get up again.

Extraordinary. That may be what happens - arguably it's happening already. But how can it possibly be necessary or justified? The problem is that secularists have moved from saying "Actually I want to dissent from religion" (a position we all defend) to "I want to impose my dissent on you too." That why you want to close faith schools, and it is why you want gay 'marriage' - you want to be able to force an alteration of other people's behaviour. It is totally intolerant and totally unnecessary and shows that secularism has never really grown out of its totalitarian past.

BTW, plenty of secular ideologies have tried "putting religion on the ground and making sure it doesn't get up again." The French Terror tried it, the various "free-thinker" movements of the 19th Century tried it. The Communists tried it across the world. Hitler tried it. They all failed. So unless you are advocating even greater totalitarianist secularism than they had, I think you should accept that you will fail too. All you will do is strengthen the Church and make the link between secularism and intolerance all the stronger.

Your Grace, BBC Radio 5 had a Stonewall man on this morning, before 8am. He was glad the ads were pulled. His concern was the well used and dog eared “what about the young who are sexually mixed up seeing the ad and causing despair” cop out. Freedom of speech can indeed go to hell as far as these people are concerned.

They started it, they were given a taste of their own tactics, and they did not like it. No No No. Like it they did not, not one bit and they did not like it. Neither did they like it. What !

Tally Ho, we have these shameless hedonists on the run. Call the dogs, shotguns at the ready chaps!!!

One of the most disturbing aspects of this rather said set of events is the sheer lack of public outcry at the violation of freedom of speech.

Let's suppose that a pro-gay poster was passed by the ASA as conforming to the Advertising Standard's rules, was suddenly pulled by Mr Johnson because it was deemed offensive to Christians. Wouldn't it be a bigger story? And doesn't that show how flimsy is our connection, as a nation to fairness and equal access to freedom of expression?

Broadwood: "Ah DanJO! Looks like you've caught the sneering bug too! How original! Well, I suppose its quicker and cheaper than coming up with a real counter argument."

A counter argument to a 'heart-warming' homily that is probably made up to 'illustrate' the point and how wonderful things can be if people take the 'right' approach? The astonishing thing to me is that you've bought the product on the basis of that sales pitch. What's to argue? Let me summarise it:

Anonymous bisexual man gets married, probably feeling social pressure. Feels he's made a mistake. Leaves wife to be gay. Isn't satisfied by that either, probably. Gets hassled by Christian friends and family over a long period of time because they don't want him to follow his gay side. Eventually gives in after feeling lonely and depressed and returns to his wife. Takes up previous sex life, has some kids, and maintains that aspect of his bisexuality going forward. Community accepts him provided he appears in that month's Church Magazine's Prodigal Son section.

Well, great. As it happens, I have a close friend who shall remain conveniently anonymous. He had an unpleasant childhood because he was picked on at school for being 'sensitive'. His Christian father was very stern and had very particular views on masculinity. For this reason, my friend didn't admit his strong homosexual inclinations to his parents and eventually got married in church to confirm to Christian social expectations. The marriage was a disaster. His wife felt unloved and their sex life was almost non-existent. His family and church was completely unsupportive.

So he told his wife he loved her as a person but felt he had to leave so she and he could get on with their lives. She was sad, but ultimately grateful. After a couple of lonely years, he met a wonderful gay man, entered a civil-partnership. His parents eventually stopped being so sanctimonious and accepted him for what he was inside and wanted him to have a happy, fulfilled life. And then, guess what! He won the bloody Euromillions lottery!!1! How lucky was that?! It couldn't have happened to a nicer person, too. He and his partner have now dedicated their lives to good works using their windfall. So there you go, good things can turn out after bad starts. Etc.

For other heart-warming stories, please check out my book on Amazon: Soppy Homilies To Illustrate Various Points, now £9.99 Save £2.00 off the RRP.

DanJ0. Allow the Inspector to dab his eyes after that Gay Peoples Friend story. And all because the man was gay. Absolute cock. Life is what you make of it. You need to be somewhat hard in this life to get on. Sensitive types suffer. The man was a pushover being drummed into something he didn’t agree with. It happens to sensitive straight people too, as well as your Charles Hawtrey type. So, no more true love stories, eh petal. There are people suffering far worse in this world...

Inspector: an interesting point you raise there. I have often wondered if my 'Christian upbringing' has handicapped my progress, by dulling my natural instinct to 'steamroller' those who get in my way? There's no doubt about it, thank God!

It's a bit depressing for me, my being a liberal and all, as I think one side is going to have to put the other on the ground and make sure it doesn't get up again. That's the way we're going.

It's ironic you should make that statement. I had thought to comment earlier on this:

I'm a political liberal. An inherent part of that is creating space so that people with different religious and moral views can co-exist where possible.

That co-existance is presumed to take place in the private square. Yet someone still has to guard the boundaries of behavior in public. In other words, someone has to decide what private moral codes can be acted upon in the public square. Implicit in your statement then is the need to make sure that only people who agree with you have the ability to control that boundary. Otherwise, your vision of liberalism is going to be overthrown. It is therefore a paternalistic statement. It presumes exactly what you say you formally reject. You are "creating space" but only so long as you get to determine the extent and span of the space created.

I initially decided against making that comment because I thought it would be unfair to you. After all, you have in the past asserted that you would defend the principles of liberalism even to the extent of watching liberalism destroyed by consistent application its own principles. But then you say something like this. Evidently you aren't interested in creating space anymore. Or is it just that you have become irritated that the people for whom you would graciously allocate space aren't overly impressed with the allocations you would make?

Liberal tolerance writ large. Should I pack my bags for the cattle car?

Oswin, the Inspector has no doubt that if he were free from the constraints of Christianity he would be a forceful and ruthless individual. But he is not free and never will be, so relax. And yes, he does appreciate others feelings, but as for rejoicing in being sensitive ? Survival of the fittest, old chap. Take this gay marriage issue, do you really think this is going to be the end of the uprising ? It needs to be stamped out, and the whiners sent on their way to whine another time...

Yes indeed, one doesn't necessarily ''rejoice'' in being 'sensitive' - in my own case, it more often involves much grinding and g-gnashing of the teeth. Ah for a moment of the ''smell of burning, and the keening of women''!

'Christianity' is really a rather good idea, given half a chance; and a sparsity of nutters...

People obviously have a diversity of opinion but at root our arguments have to be consistent. It is no good regailing against homosexuality unless we are consistent and regail also against masturbation and heterosexual unfaithfulness using artificial contraception. All of them attempt to use our bodies for pleasure without responsibility. One thing leads to another and it all began with divorce. If Christians want to argue against homosexuality they must be consistent and apply the same ethic across the board.

I speak as one who has met many different cultures and races, some of whom have had several different sexes and sexuality.

I feel sad for the gays who have been lied to by their leaders. They can never achieve full "equality" with hetrosexual humans. In so much as I mean that equality means "the same as". Gay men cannot have children by themselves, neither can gay females. They rely upon surrogates and what passes for your primitive medical science to achieve parenthood. Ergo, gay cannot be equal with hetro; there are ways of creating equality, but that would rob the gay of being what they are. The gay is caught in a paradox. I thus weap for them. And emplore that they should be content with tolerance.

I also weep because it seems that the gay is a mere pawn in a creater battle between human culture as alluded to by both Danjo and Albert.

I must also admit that I was tempted to offer my services as a warrior to either side of the religious/non religious sides in the apparent forthcoming battle. But then I reflected on what Albert said, and thought that, whilst I could win such a war (for either side) you humans simply wouldn't allow me to engage in the type of tactics that would be necessary to win it.

We Alpha Draconis are not reptiles- despite our green skin! We are more closely linked to birds and Kangaroos actually, in so much as the male gives birth to an egg, the size of a chicken's egg(via what you would call the willy-I've given birth 60 times!) and we males have to sit on the egg for about 30 days and once it is hatched, the offspring is transferred to the female and mother's pouch whilst the infant grows up.

"homophobic remarks".

Not so young attractive feisty gay one. I merely note that the agenda of the human gay lobby is to put gays on an equal footing with the majority culture of you humans.

This is not possible as a biological fact. It is possible to change this at a genetic level, but it would no longer make you a gay (I can go into further detail if you so wish).

In respect of your comment about the highest bidder, this is simply because our empire is not at war. And when the empire is not at war us knights are commanded to seek out conflict and fight (and earn a salary).

However I am quite content with the space bucks I have just earned in my deal with the mormons and the decision to buy a few billion in Euro debt, so my Order does not require the cash.... And in any event I would not be able to convince either side of the tactics necessary, so neither Albert or Danjo would want my services.

Anna Anglican. Do stop throwing around ‘homophobic’ like holy water. No one is fearful of homosexuals, more homo critical. You’re very nearly grown up according to your avatar, so lets start behaving like one, what !

By the way, you are not really gay. You are far too pretty. Where, for example, is the excess body hair, unless you are hiding it from us. You are most likely involved in a ‘protection rejection’ complex, but that can be resolved with professional help. For example, do you retain guilt over a run over cat you rescued that eventually died ? If you persist in your lunacy, you may well end up with a fearsome dungaree wearing main battle tank of a dyke for company. A sobering thought that will have part of you weeping with fear...

Ps- I don't have any 'excess' bodily hair and any 'hair' that is not on my head is waxed on a two week basis- I won't talk about having a Brazillian as it might give Inspector heart failure and as he must be about 160 years old, as with his neanderthal views, we must look after the elderly.

@Alpha, OK, but I still don't see why you won't come down off the fence and support Dan or Al. Can't you at least come down on one side or the other? And anyway, why would a gay having children mean that they wouldn't be gay?

Because I am not into slaughtering of species for the sake of it! If I were to back the secularists the following would have to be done (in order to crush the religious) :

1. I would populate as many secularists as I could into positions of power and influence- politics, media, academia, at a pinch the established religion. I would also enlist as many allies as I could, e.g. those who suffered in the past, such as gays and sprinkle them liberally in the same power places as the secularists.

Over time, I would use this powerbase to undermine current orthodoxies until a new orthodoxy was apparent- and any one would didn't follow this path would be branded a bigot and not likely to prosper in their career.

2) Of course tactic number 1 is not likely to persuade everyone, thus sterner measures would be taken. Phase 2 shall therefore consist of changing laws and creating a body, such as an inquisition or Star Chamber (I shall call it the equalities commission) which shall root out any dissident voices and shame them.

3) Phase 3- more laws which shall include fines and prison for dissent.

6) Phase 6- round by the religious dissidents who refuse to follow the path and put them into camps- and exterminate them.

Given that 90% of your planet adheres to some religious belief I would have killed about 6.3 billion humans by now. But it would be in the cause of equality and justice.

But there would be one final phase, phase 8. That would entail the complete and utter destruction of EVERY single religious artifact on the planet, the destruction of all Holy Books and the destruction of every single temple, church, synagogue and mosque of the planet. All reference to religion would be banned and anyone thinking along those lines subject to arrest and prison.

Those who report having overcome homosexual inclinations are merely reporting their experience. That Boris Johnson has banned them from doing so on London buses is yet another very good reason not to vote for him.

If it is something with absolutely no scientific basis that you want, then that would be the historically and anthropologically illiterate theory, barely 40 years old if that and therefore postdating the decriminalisation of male homosexual acts between consenting adults in private, that persons rather than acts are homosexual, and that a tendency towards such acts is a personal or collective identity comparable to sex, class, nationality, ethnicity, religion, or whatever. That theory was invented and propagated entirely by pederasts.

Most people who have gone on to engage predominantly or exclusively in homosexual acts had heterosexual experiences in their formative years, often well above the age of consent, and almost always well above what Peter Tatchell would like that age to be. Why should reporting the reverse experience be taboo?

Seriously, have I just lost perspective or does it feel like there's an ideological arms race developing to anyone else? It has an inexorable feel to it, and it feels very unBritish. It was before my time but I suppose the social upheavals in the 1960s must have been a bit like this to those involved.

There was a similar raft of indignation when Core Issues came to Belfast with much ado about bigotry, anti-gay, gay cure and offence taken at the title of the lecture being called `The Lepers Among Us` but the media and gay rights activists and politicians all got the wrong end of the wrong end of the stick :

Gay Activist / protestor encouraged by homosexuality event after attending and seeing misrepresentation in the mediahttp://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/local/activist_encouraged_by_homosexuality_event_1_3448034

Perhaps I should be going back a few more decades to the social uncertainties at the start of the last century when various groups were jostling for political power and change was inevitable but unpredictable.

Anna Anglican is merely demonstrating she is what one used to refer to as a 'prick teaser'. This makes no impression on me, I can assure you and I never drool. It is you, not I, who seems obsessed with such titillations.

I am beginning to develop deep suspicions about your predilictions, Sir. I shall be closely monitoring your comments from here on in.

Sanctimony? You are the one who referred to yourself as 'radicalized.' You are the one who used the phrase 'ideological war.' You are the one who said that 'one side is going to have to put the other on the ground and make sure it doesn't get up again.' Given the reference to ideological war, that 'putting down' can only be understood in ideological terms.

Given the declining footprint of Christianity, exactly which side do you think is likely to be 'put down?' The neutrality of your statement is feigned. The practical implication was "These religionists are going to be put down." Why? Because they refuse to bend the knee to modern dogmas. And how exactly do you think a religion can be put down so that it can't get up again? There is really only one way to do it, and it doesn't involve slogans on buses. Did you not understand the implication of your words? I am not even sure why you think this implication necessary since the cultural influence of Christianity is evaporating like water in the desert - as you have asserted many times. Why should 'ideological war' be "the way things are going" if Christianity is too weak to assert itself in the public square, and only getting weaker?

You made reference to the active intentional suppression of an entire group of people by means of implied violence simply for what they think. That is the very essence of illiberal. And now you would simply distance yourself from your own remarks? They certainly didn't come across as depersonalized. They came across as "Someone is eventually going deal with these people if they don't learn their place." I attributed your depression to the realization that this was going to become a necessity. It certainly didn't seem to me that the 'radicalized' DanJ0 who foresees 'ideological warfare' would be greatly distressed by the results of said suppression. Otherwise, I would have expected you to declare that the expected suppression of my fellow religionists would fatally compromise the liberal state for which you advocate.

The 'war' that Christians are engaged in is the spiritual war between the 'fallen Adam' and the Risen Christ.

When man took the decision to decide for himself what was' right' and what was 'wrong' he entered a minefield in which he became increasing lost.

What does man use as a 'blueprint ' for his behaviour because he has none?.So in desperation he 'makes up his own'.He uses his 'reason' to draw up a 'blueprint' of his own.Of course everyone has a different opinion of what is 'good' so this causes endless confusion and arguments, even wars and famines.Since man decided to go' his own way'chaos has ruled and will rule until the return of Christ. I expect(sadly) things to get far worse until that time.

Carl: "And now you would simply distance yourself from your own remarks?"

No, I simply distance myself from your invalid interpretation. If you want to give yourself a satisfying stiffy over your imagined 'gotcha!' then so be it. I've set out a consistent liberal position enough times that it ought to be obvious this sudden disconnect you've jumped on is your own construction. So, jog on.

If someone who is apparently happily married begins to harbour a scintilla of doubt about his (or her) sexual orientation then organisations like Stonewall and much of the media will encourage them to "come out."

Simple justice demands that people who are apparently gay but think they might have dormant heterosexual instincts should also be helped to make that change.

That would be true even if homosexuality and heterosexuality were equivalent but they are not. Heterosexuality is an intrinsically desirable state. Homosexuality is not.

However I do have some doubts about the advertising campaign and negative advertising in general. The Apostles and other early Christians made converts by focussing on the message that we all need forgiveness and, by the grace of God, a new life. They did not teach that some groups of people need it more than others.

I see Carey is beating his drum again and trying to give legs to that faux-narrative of victimhood the Christian Institute et al have been so studiously and carefully and ruthlessly constructing.

“It is now Christians who are persecuted; often sought out and framed by homosexual activists,” he says. “Christians are driven underground. There appears to be a clear animus to the Christian faith and to Judaeo-Christian values. Clearly the courts of the United Kingdom require guidance.”

Driven underground? Lol. What a berk. We've just passed through Easter, with all the national TV coverage of religious services, well-publicised street plays, screened Hollywood epics, front-page-reported sermons by various religious leaders, and so on, that entails every year.

We've got churches scattered across every town and city. Dedicated slots on TV and radio for Christians. The CofE has bishops installed in the House of Lords. Prime Ministers are 'doing god'. A Christian lobby group has been placing interns with MPs in the Commons. Abortion clinics have nutters outside with placards and cameras filming female clients. Christians are well placed in national newspaper columns and throughout the social media.

We have homosexuals in every sphere of life - in Parliament and massively in the Media. We have TV shows and films about homosexuality, articles in paper promoting homosexuality. Prime Ministers and Mayors promote homosexuality. We have "Gay Pride" parades through the street.

Now add to that an imaginary situation in which homosexuals started to lose their jobs. Every case that went to court was lost. "Pro-gay" posters on buses were banned without public outcry.

The big national stuff matter little, when the little people start to lose their jobs.

Fought tooth and nail every fecking step of the way too by religionists as a whole and by those heavily influenced by the religious hegemony over the last 40 years of that social progress. As religion becomes increasingly irrelevant to the general public it's much harder for religionists to oppress minorities now and oh boy are some of them unhappy about it. They're just going to have to get comfortable with merely being equal with other special interests groups in society rather than having special privileges, bless them.

As religion becomes increasingly irrelevant to the general public it's much harder for religionists to oppress minorities now and oh boy are some of them unhappy about it.

Yes, please explain to me again the necessity you see for one side or the other to be 'put down so it can't get up again' in this ideological war you predicted. You seem to be repeatedly stepping all over your premise, so I must be missing something. If religion is becoming 'increasingly irrelevant to the general public', why did you predict that it would need to be put down?

I deplore your scurrilous labelling of Miss Anglican. You have absolutely no right to refer to a young woman in such a manner. I attempted, perhaps ineptly so, in a 'bantering' fashion, to point out that she was perhaps a tad unwise in her exuberance; especially so, with you lurking in the shadows!

As for ''predilections'' - mine are currently focused upon detering unsavoury old men from lasciviousness; so far with little success.

Anna. The Inspector has no defined image of what a homosexual woman is. Many have had children, and not a turkey baster in sight, so how homosexual is that ?

His current hypothesis is explaining the prevalence of lesbianism in academia. There may be an issue with deep study that switches a woman student’s mind into masculine mode. Worth investigating that scenario. You yourself may be a victim of it, and if so, you could indeed be turned back to your original biological purpose, having babies, with a man...

David B said “Shacklefree, what exactly is wrong with using our bodies for pleasure without responsibility?”

A good question and one which takes us to the very point where we can decide if there is such a thing as morality. If morality is simply a democratic decision or even what any totalitarian dictator decides, then it has no objective reality. However, if there is no God then there is no objective reason to argue that Stalin’s morality is any better than that of William Wilberforce. If there is a God, then he created the Universe and made up the physical and moral laws. If the first scenario is true then you are right to suggest that using our bodies without responsibility is perfectly acceptable. For the same reason bank robbery, is also acceptable. In practice, this wouldn’t happen because people don’t like getting robbed and would get together and prosecute bank robbers. However, this is not an objective standard because people can also get together and implement policies which impoverish vast areas of humanity such as happened in colonial times and more recently with bankers bonuses and we haven’t been able to do anything about it such is the stranglehold these people have on the finances of the World.

In the second scenario, there is a God who promises everlasting happiness but there is a price which is to treat not only other people with respect but also our bodies which are a gift to us and were created in His image and likeness – a truly liberating idea. Our bodies are a wonderful gift and there is legitimate pleasure to be had from our bodies but to use them to satisfy addiction, whether it be with strawberries and cream or moonshine is unworthy. For morality to be legitimate, it must be consistent and based on true authority.

AnnaYou can break the stereotype without informing us all about the state of your pubic hair! Earlier, as I recall, there were comments about you being naked in the shower. I don't doubt you are a beautiful young woman - not muscle bound and wearing oily jeans - but dignity my girl, dignity.

Anna said ..."Ps- I don't have any 'excess' bodily hair and any 'hair' that is not on my head is waxed on a two week basis- I won't talk about having a Brazillian as it might give Inspector heart failure and as he must be about 160 years old, as with his neanderthal views, we must look after the elderly.

(A chatisement. Fine - but why pretend it was me that might be interested?)

Dodo said .."Anna Anglican is merely demonstrating she is what one used to refer to as a 'prick teaser'. This makes no impression on me, I can assure you and I never drool. It is you, not I, who seems obsessed with such titillations."

(Me thinks you doth protest way toomuch)

Oswin said ..."I deplore your scurrilous labelling of Miss Anglican. You have absolutely no right to refer to a young woman in such a manner. I attempted, perhaps ineptly so, in a 'bantering' fashion, to point out that she was perhaps a tad unwise in her exuberance; especially so, with you lurking in the shadows!"

(Oh yeah, I believe you Sir O'Swine the Noble)

Now, it seems to me you made reference to her indiscretion before me and chose to use me as the butt of your comment and at the same time curry favour with her.

Is there perhaps some projection going on here? You have implied such a thing before in relation to cressida de nova.

I think we have more important matters to discuss than Anna Anglican's nether regions (I never rail against people in wheel chairs!), such as Danjo's intellectual arms race against people of any religion. By the Gods, the man doesn't do modest ambition does he?

I am interested in whether the terms "man" and "woman" are still used in your time for human biological and physiological characteristics and the socially constructed roles and behaviours of gender.

As homosexuality increases, bi-sexuality too, and as sitophilia, paraphilia and zoophilia becomes openly acceptable and then sibling and parent-child sex, traditional sex and gender terms will have to shift?

I expect everything is in a massive heap at the bottom of all the slippery slopes the religious, and any other groups resisting social change because it adversely affects their own specialist interests, warned us about.

"we have more important matters to discuss ... such as Danjo's intellectual arms race against people of any religion. By the Gods, the man doesn't do modest ambition does he?"

It makes sense "as religion becomes increasingly irrelevant to the general public" because it will be easier to "put it on the ground and make sure it doesn't get up again" without causing too much of a commotion. As a liberal secularist he may have to shed the odd crocodile tear (or become depressed for a bit) at the temporary loss of one or two ideals, however various wrongs will have been righted. There does appear to be a ratcheting of the rhetoric as he observes. My guess is that it has something to do with the "gay marriage" proposal and the decision by some Christians to proselytize from buses instead of pulpits. Has the Rubicon been crossed?

@Dodo, I refer to Danjo as a he because,as far as I am aware you Earthers haven't yet created the androgyne -human, which I think occurs in about 20 years from now- and all the subsequent turmoil and war it creates.

William: "There does appear to be a ratcheting of the rhetoric as he observes."

It's more than just rhetoric. As I said, I think there's a war of ideologies developing in this area. It seems like we've moving towards the sort of radical-Christian political groups we hear of in the United States. Religious fundamentalism, essentially. As those are becoming more active, opposing groups are stepping up. I think the New Atheism thing is one response. I expect Stonewall will become even more vocal. The pro-choice defenders will probably respond more aggressively to these in-your-face campaigns outside clinics. I don't think these opposing drives will co-exist.

"As a liberal secularist he may have to shed the odd crocodile tear (or become depressed for a bit) at the temporary loss of one or two ideals, however various wrongs will have been righted."

As long as we're in an evolution-not-revolution situation, I don't think all this ideological-warfare will have that much of an impact on our society. We'll end up with same-sex marriage because the rest of society is already sexually liberal itself. We're a religiously and culturally diverse society as a result of decades of immigration and a better educated and more widely travelled population so people won't accept a Christian social revolution which would impact on the lives of many different sections of society. Nor will they accept an atheist revolution, if there are actually people who advocate that, as it happens.

Alpha: "The earth is in 2300 is one giant middle class, a sort of California cum Islington, guardian reading polity. You would like it."

I get attacked elsewhere by the Guardian-reading 'left-wing' for being too politically 'right-wing'. It's my libertarian-liberal orientation, you see. They want a rather bigger and much more paternal State than I would care to have.

Although I think that groups like this do a lot of damage to the people they draw in to their little schemes, I rather like the idea that my bus fare is subsidised by them. On balance, I'd have let the ads stand too.

By the way, on the previous post, Rebel Saint said that the wording was almost the same between the two ads. I think he's confusing type face with wording. One says something, the other pretends something.

If you don't like the "autocrat" Boris as your mayor, the Ibrahimic religions could put one up themselves.

The mayor where I live, Lutfur Rahman is of an Ibrahimic Religion, Your Grace. Perhaps you should encourage him to stand for mayor of London instead? After all, we know how much solidarity there is between you Ibrahimic types now that you've got a group to gang up on, eh?

From memory, there was a candidate from Christian Choice in 2008. I'm rather astounded to see that the undisputed votes of the moral majority didn't see him triumph to overturn the modern day Sodom that is London! What happened, do you think?

Christians are generally tolerant towards your private predilictions. Exercise your free will and engage in disordered acts if you want. However, please don't rub our noses in your sin. To do so risks a backlash and a return to the days when homosexuals experienced abuse.

Personally, I would prefer it if homosexual acts were still criminal. If not illegal, not presented as 'normal. If, however, tolerance leads to a radical homosexual agenda, as it has, and the suggestion of equivalance with heterosexuality, which it has, then the tide may turn against you.

My advice - stop celebrating the the decline of Christian values and live your life quietly and discreetly.

Good point made Dodo. Nobody much gives a care about the homosexual community. Let them get on with it, it’s up to them, being the mantra. But when they come out fighting – even a mild mannered Inspector General is obliged to block their plans of world domination....

Dodo: "My advice - stop celebrating the the decline of Christian values and live your life quietly and discreetly."

My advice to you is stop moaning about the decline of Christian hegemony and live your life quietly and discreetly. Most people don't mind you bowing to your painted idols, whispering prayers to your organisation's favoured dead people, and kowtowing to your geriatic chief priest. However, when you venture into the world of politics you should expect to be treated like any other lobby groups and politicans and protestors. In the case of your organisation, that means treated with the contempt it deserves.

DanJ0Actually, the corrupt agenda of homosexuality is serving a purpose. God always brings good from evil. It is succeeding in reawakening faith in many people as they consider the issues and choices at the back of sexuality.

The Catholic Church is your friend, if you but knew it. Some protestant churches in Africa are advocating the death penalty for homosexual acts.

Dodo: "The Catholic Church is your friend, if you but knew it. Some protestant churches in Africa are advocating the death penalty for homosexual acts."

I'm very well aware of what's happening in some parts of Africa and how religion is playing its evil part when it gets a fair wind. I also note that you'd rather return to the old days of injustice and lock up us if you could.

I've never been much of a fan of Pride marches and the like but their reason was to collectively say: we're not ashamed as you want us to be, and we won't accept your oppression. Your and the Inspector's comments show that we need to keep on our guard.

"It is succeeding in reawakening faith in many people as they consider the issues and choices at the back of sexuality."

Well, if you look at the statistics and the historic trends then you will see a seismic shift in public attitudes to homosexuality and it's not in your favour. Moreover, I think the public will turn against the religious if you start intruding on their lives. Those creepy bus adverts showed the adverse reaction of normal people to weird religious stuff.

Also, I think the Catholic Church will get lumped in with Islam in the minds of the public if it gets much more politically active and outspoken. People generally want to live their own lives as they wish rather than have some Taleban-esque people with religious beliefs telling them what is allowed or not according to some god-hypothesis and an old book of fables.

DanJ0, Your and the Inspector's comments show that we need to keep on our guard.

Has it occurred to you that the Inspector does not loathe homosexuals as individuals ? But when you types gang together and demand demand demand, what’s a fellow to do, just capitulate....

Moreover, I think the public will turn against the religious if you start intruding on their lives.

Moreover, the Inspector KNOWS the public appreciate the religious as they seem to have no problem in attending baptisms, marriages and funerals. And when a particular unpleasant happening takes place, a murdered child for example, it’s to the religious they turn. Now, in your sentence above, try substituting for religious the word gays. See how easy it reads...

Inspector: "But when you types gang together and demand demand demand, what’s a fellow to do, just capitulate...."

I feel something similar when your clerics publish political letters to be read out to congregations of your members.

"Moreover, the Inspector KNOWS the public appreciate the religious as they seem to have no problem in attending baptisms, marriages and funerals."

It's not religion per se but religious intrusion on their liberty or sanctimonious attacks on their lifestyle choices which will rankle.

"It hurts - doesn’t it ?"

No. Yet everyone can see the ongoing loss of religious hegemony really hurts those who would control the lives of others, such as yourself and Dodo. Look at all the fuss your organisation kicks up when it can't get its own way, and at the wailing by Christians in general in the UK about the alleged persecution you experience because people are starting to treat religion as nothing particularly special. That really seems to hurt.

I honestly think you're wrong. I don't suppose anyone wants to think in too much detail about the sex there any more than anyone wants to think about the sex between (say) two very overweight people, or old people, or ugly people etc. But that's the thing. Accepting that gay people are just getting on with their lives and that it's all just, well, stuff doesn't require a great deal other than being comfortable with diversity. Of course, that's the rub for some Catholics: the idea that people are carrying on beyond the oppressive control of their organisation. It's ever been thus, really.

The Inspector believes you. How can he not; this is the line you’ve always followed. You say gays are just getting on with their lives. If only ! But to be fair to the majority of them and and the handful the Inspector knows, you are right, they are. They are basking in the tolerance 1967 gave them. Good for them, truly. But when you raise your heads above the parapet, look what happens. You want to go to schools and tell teenagers that homosexuality is acceptable. Wrong approach. You should be there for for teenagers who are questioning their sexuality, and even then, not trawling for converts, but answering their concerns neutrally. There’s another lad in the local rag tonight. just 17. Threw himself off a motorway bridge. that’s how serious this issue is...

Inspector: "You want to go to schools and tell teenagers that homosexuality is acceptable. Wrong approach."

I'm not advocating proselytising or lobby groups going around schools like the religious do. All I want is for homosexuality to be unremarkable so that teenagers who identify as gay are not forced to hide it out of fear or don't properly understand what's going on. We seem to be getting close to that point now.

You know, I'm barely middle-aged and my parents split up and subsequently divorced while I was at school. That's not so long ago yet I remember that it was seen as remarkable. In fact, an abiding memory I have is of some bright spark thinking that this meant my parents were not married and therefore that I was a bastard.

I don't advocate divorce. People shouldn't aspire to it and it's not the ideal outcome. But sometimes it happens and that's that. I think the option should be there for those who need it and so children at least need to know what it is so that the people who do it or their children are not evil, or freaks, or social outcasts. It's providing information about the way the world actually is that I advocate.

DanJ0All I want is for homosexuality to be unremarkable so that teenagers who identify as gay are not forced to hide it out of fear or don't properly understand what's going on. We seem to be getting close to that point now.

Agreed and good, but it’s going to hard to pierce young peoples attitudes. Is gay ‘in’ at the moment ? Hard to tell, don’t you think. Has been mention of gay being the new stupid lately. They themselves call the shots at that age. We look on only as observers. You naturally know that, but of course, you can’t try with a defeatist attitude. Please don’t blame ‘outside factors’ like the church if you fail…

Okay; think about this. So called 'conversion therapy' has been shown to increase suicide and self harm, as well as not working. If you are pro this ad then you are advocating for a harmful and dangerous practice that many object to - particularly as it is often coercive and inflicted upon young LGBTQ people by their (sometimes well-meaning) religious or bigoted parents.

I've just watched Long Lost Family on ITV about a 19yo unmarried mother who was pressured into handing over her baby for adoption, and a 21yo gay man from the North East whose parents completely disowned him when he admitted he was gay. God, it makes me so blisteringly angry that this sort of thing happened in the past when people were so constrained by social convention. The devastation it caused. Gah.

This is not about the right of Christians - it is about an advertisement of dubious validity.

The Stonewall ad just states a fact - some people are gay. The AM sponsored ad make claims that are at best a gross exaggeration of the truth. There has not been any INDEPENDENT longitudinal studies that back up the claims of ‘gay conversion’ therapies

I well remember visiting Martin Hallett at True Freedom Trust in Liverpool in the mid-80s and meeting Peter – an ‘ex-gay’, with whom Martin shared his house (along with Peter’s wife and their two children).

In 1992, I happened to be visiting a friend in Lancashire who at the time attended a large Evangelical House church – who was friends with Peter’s ex-wife and children. Peter’s ‘cure’ had been a dud and four lives were ruined! For a time I was very friendly with a leading light in the ‘ex-gay’ movement – he once wrote and told me of what a fraud he felt, standing up in front of an audience at Spring Harvest, telling how, as an ‘ex-gay’ man, he lived a life of fulfilment in the arms of a loving church – when in reality he was under the care of a psychiatrist for depression and reliant on anti-depressants to function. He told Evangelical Christians what they wanted to hear, but not necessarily the truth!

Be clear about what you are complaining about – otherwise you are just spreading hatred and discord... This is not an attack on Christians. Remember, Boris Johnson was very keen to employ a Black clergyman as his DEPUTY when he first came to office. Alas, unbeknownst to Boris, this clergyman was under investigation by his diocese for financial irregularities (allegedly stealing from parishioners and church funds), eventually he had to resign (thanks to the Evangelical Bp of Barking dobbing him in – see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2008/jul/07/forafewheadyminutes) – perhaps, Johnson has some reason to be suspicious of Christians and what they say is ‘truth’ since that unfortunate debacle!

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)